November 25, 2005

"Admission and Exclusion" at elite universities.

Michiko Kakutani reviews "The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale and Princeton," by Berkeley sociology professor Jerome Karabel. Here's some fascinating historical information about the origins of the nuanced admissions procedures we academics hold so dear:
Mr. Karabel writes that until the 1920's, Harvard, Yale and Princeton, "like the most prestigious universities of other nations," admitted students "almost entirely on the basis of academic criteria." Applicants "were required to take an examination, and those who passed were admitted." Though the exams exhibited a distinct class bias (Latin and Greek, after all, were not taught at most public schools), he says that "the system was meritocratic in an elemental way: if you met the academic requirements, you were admitted, regardless of social background."

This all changed after World War I, he argues, as it became "clear that a system of selection focused solely on scholastic performance would lead to the admission of increasing numbers of Jewish students, most of them of eastern European background." This development, he notes, occurred "in the midst of one of the most reactionary moments in American history," when "the nationwide movement to restrict immigration was gaining momentum" and anti-Semitism was on the rise, and the Big Three administrators began to worry that "the presence of 'too many' Jews would in fact lead to the departure of Gentiles." Their conclusion, in Mr. Karabel's words: "given the dependence of the Big Three on the Protestant upper class for both material resources and social prestige, the 'Jewish problem' was genuine, and the defense of institutional interests required a solution that would prevent 'WASP flight.' "

The solution they devised was an admissions system that allowed the schools, as Mr. Karabel puts it, "to accept - and to reject - whomever they desired." Instead of objective academic criteria, there would be a new emphasis on the intangibles of "character" - on qualities like "manliness," "personality" and "leadership." Many features of college admissions that students know today - including the widespread use of interviews and photos; the reliance on personal letters of recommendation; and the emphasis on extracurricular activities - have roots, Mr. Karabel says, in this period.
Later, universities changed the goals of admissions, Karabel writes, in part because discriminating against women and minorities went out of style and in part because large amounts of money from the foundations and the federal government freed them from needing to cater so much to the preferences of alumni donors. Karabel characterizes these changes as self-interested: the Big Three wanted "to preserve and, when possible, to enhance their position in a highly stratified system of higher education." They were "often deeply conservative" and "intensely preoccupied with maintaining their close ties to the privileged."

You just can't win with these sociology professors. Try to adopt an enlightened policy, and they'll find a way to demonstrate that you did it for your own good. Well, maybe you did.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Apparently, Sam Alito was all for the preservation of white, male law schools, even up until the mid-80s, when his membership in CAP was proudly displayed on his resume for application to a Reagan Administration deputy assistant attorney general position.

Anonymous said...

Good morning, btw.

Asher Abrams said...

Ann, fascinating piece. Thanks for posting this.

ShadyCharacter said...

quxxo, in your real life (assuming you have one) do you walk up to people and start spouting off with your weird off-topic political rants? You must drive your family crazy at Thanksgiving! I hope there's no conservatives there to set you off...

Ann is too polite to erase your moonbat rants and most other posters are too polite to respond to them, but can't you possibly wait for an on-topic post to vent your spleen on?

SteveWe said...

And so it continues at another level in California where there is "white flight" from high schools that have "too many" Asian students. Ref: WSJ 11/19/05. Will (and can) high schools limit their enrollment to meet "expectations?" Should they do so? And, the biggest question, What gives? Are white families distressed because their children will rank lower because the hard work and attention to academics by Asian (or whatever) students pushes the ranking of white students lower? Maybe white students should buckle down to make the grades instead of fleeing to "safe territory." (Sorry for all the scare quotes, but they seem to be appropriate.)

Jake said...

In pursuit of a "balanced student body", universities on the east coast are still using nuanced admissions to keep out Jews. On the west coast universities are using the same techniques to keep out Asians.

It is the dirty underbelly of today's affirmative action in college admissions.

Ann Althouse said...

But Quxxo raises an interesting point in light of Karabel's theory, which would say that opening up to women and minorities was actually a "deeply conservative" scheme. So Alito is liberal in that equation.

Anyway, there is something to be said for the tradition of single-sex colleges. Let's not act as if everyone who wants to preserve them is a bigot.

Bruce Hayden said...

As for single sex school, I just finished "The Problem with Hillary", where the author points out that the all female school she went to (Wellsley) had a long term reputation for lesbianism. (note though that though the author cast a lot of aspirins, he was able to only document sex between her and two others - both guys, one her husband).

That said, I am in favor of all female and all male high schools and colleges. There are some of either sex who do best without the presence of the opposite sex.

Bruce Hayden said...

I have no first hand knowledge of Jewish exclusion, but a girlfriend in Business School did. She was one of the smartest women I have ever met, and blew through Brown in three years (graduating in the mid 1970s). Needless to say, she was heated on this subject. According to her, she went to Brown instead of Harvard, Yale, etc. because of the Jewish quotas of the time at those schools. Brown didn't apparently have such at then.

Bruce Hayden said...

I would suggest though that any time you start having Jewish quotas, Asian quotas, etc., you are on the other side of Affirmative Action. You are not accepting people solely based on their race, national origins, etc., which, to me, is identical to accepting them solely (or primarily) based on these criteria.

If a Harvard degree didn't give you a leg up in life (arguably throughout it), it wouldn't really matter. Thus, I am less concerned about some of the lower tier UC schools. But Harvard is Harvard, and by having Jewish or Asian quotas (and, similarly, Black and Hispanic preferences), they are bestowing their imprimatur on people for reasons other than merit.

Barry said...

Malcolm Gladwell wrote about "The Chosen" in the October 10, 2005 edition of The New Yorker:

Getting In: The Social Logic of Ivy League Admissions

Gladwell's take is well worth reading too... it's really a terrific essay.

Buck said...

Re: That Economist review. I found the first sentence (AMERICANS justify their country's comparatively high social inequality by emphasising its equality of opportunity.) extremely off-putting.

High social inequality compared to what or who? The Brits, with their world-renowned class structure and snobbery? The Indian caste system? The Chinese social/political structure? "High social inequality," my a**!

XWL said...

The admissions game is just that, a game.

Parents and students attempt to game the system by tailoring cirricular and extra-cirricular activities towards specific campuses.

Large public higher education institutions (like the UC system) are believed to game the system to obviate laws they find distasteful or increase profitablity. UC schools after the passage of prop. 209 started counting 'personal history' far greater so admission essays became 'queen for a day' sobfest that forefronted struggles against white male hegemony where applicable. Also the common belief amongst high achievers was that UC admissions favored students from opposite ends of the state so that students would be more likely to use student housing (UCLA accepts more Northern Californians, UCBerkeley accepts more Southern Californians).

These legends, theories and myths all form due to the complete lack of transparency and the high stakes of admissions.

It's difficult and frustrating to play a game where the rules aren't known to all participants (and you thought Monopoly or risk games got heated), schools, especially public institutions of higher education should be paragons of openness rather than the murky swamps of bias and secret dealings they appear to be.

bearing said...

Barry:

Love the Gladwell essay you linked to.

Coming from the Midwest --- I feel much the same way. Why would I go to Harvard when I could major in engineering at an excellent program within a Big Ten, land-grant university? It's the postgraduate degree that matters, anyway. What the hell is the big deal with going to a private school? I can't imagine that the increased tuition cost is, for the vast majority, a price worth paying for the upgrade in post-grad dollars.

erp said...

bearing.

Of course your way of looking things makes sense, but being accepted at and attending an ivy has nothing to do with being a good engineer or physicist and everything to do with being a member of an elite.

I can almost guarantee that when your son or daughter is ready to go to college, you will look at things very differently. Meanwhile, start saving your money for the outrageous tuition.

Welcome to our country. You sound like the type of person we want to join us in building the greatest country the world has ever seen.

erp said...

brylin ... your point being?